Let’s be honest about public financing

By David Paterson

New York Daily News|

Oct 30, 2019 | 3:42 PM

In this file photo, then New York Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo (R) speaks at a press conference with current New York Governor David Paterson November 9, 2010 in New York City. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

A state commission is in the process of designing a system for public financing of state campaigns. As Gov. Cuomo rightly said, the process has turned into politics on steroids, with everyone jockeying for their own political advantage. It’s a classic example of Miles’ Law: “Where you stand depends on where you sit.”

Existing political parties want to preserve their rights and exclude others; aspiring parties want more access to public funds. As Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. Here are the facts that shouldn’t get lost in the hysteria playing out on Twitter and in the Capitol.

Advertisement

‎First, polling shows you that public financing of campaigns is decidedly unpopular among the electorate; at the same time, it’s favored by some good government groups and by political organizations that could increase their power.

Second, if done incorrectly, public financing could become prohibitively expensive and the entire exercise could be doomed. Given the low threshold to become a party, the number of statewide parties fluctuates every year; this year alone, there are seven statewide parties and 213 state legislative seats that could be eligible for taxpayer funding. If there were primaries on each of those lines, it could translate to over 1,000 races per cycle that could be eligible for public funding. The cost could be in the hundreds of millions and make the program — already unpopular with voters — economically impossible.

Advertisement

Third, if precautions are not taken, organizations could turn public financing into a business opportunity by accessing millions in taxpayer dollars if they create a statewide party All one would have to do is gather signatures to meet the low threshold, create a party and access public matching funds in order to pursue a specific agenda and not a credible, honest candidacy.

Currently, becoming a statewide party is so easy that almost any motivated group can do it. Even marginal efforts can easily become recognized state parties. Should taxpayers really foot the bill for someone to run on parties that have qualified under existing rules, like the Stop Common Core or the Serve America Movement party?

Fourth, for many years, reformers have tried to end fusion voting where small parties broker their party’s endorsement for political benefit. Publications from the New York Times to Newsday have long been against the concept of fusion voting, which exists in only nine states nationwide.

If the politician does not cooperate with the party, they will not be given the endorsement, or the endorsement can be given to a different candidate, often times based on petty politics and personal power — not ideology. If the Conservative Party and the Working Families Party truly are ideologically driven, how is it possible that they have given their line to the same candidate in this year’s Nassau district attorney race?

The old Liberal Party was the classic example of the problem. As the saying went: The Liberal Party is neither liberal nor a party. It was an exploitative control mechanism for political power.

Legislators who criticize the commission’s process as undemocratic are wholly disingenuous. The Legislature approved the process by which the commission was set up — they read the law and affirmatively voted to adopt it. Further, the Legislature has total veto power through their appointees on the commission; any final recommendations will require support from both the Senate and Assembly appointees.

Legislators have in effect a second veto as they could come back to Albany in December and overturn any proposal put forth by the commission. Rather than pander to their particular political patron, a legislator could voice their opinion to their leader or use their power actually take a position by voting for a proposal — something they chose not to do during the last legislative session.

The Daily News Flash Newsletter

The current debate seems not about principle, but about lobbying for political advantage. The Working Families Party decries other existing smaller parties, bristling at competition. So much for their claims of advocating for "open democracy.” The Conservative Party is also an existing party, and they too want their status and power protected.

Incredibly, the Working Families Party and the Conservative party joined together in an unholy alliance to file a lawsuit to stop reforms and secure their leverage. Ironically, they judge-shopped, filing a joint suit in a western New York court where the judge first accepted the case and then was subsequently forced to recuse himself after acting inappropriately. This same judge’s wife happened to have spent time serving as chairperson of the Independence Party, another existing statewide party.

Meantime, the commission is contemplating limiting the public matching funds to inside a candidate’s legislative district. That’s a perfectly sound idea, but some statewide “progressive” organizations are balking; they want public funds to match small contributions coming from anywhere in New York State. If this idea prevails, Manhattan millionaires could dominate financing in an election in the South Bronx. So much for all the rhetoric on empowering lower-income New Yorkers and communities of color.

On the other hand, community-based organizations in election districts want matching funds from inside the district to maximize their grassroots advantage and stop outside richer donors. No voice in the debate is impartial or unaffected. Each argues its self-interest.

Our public financing conversation has become all about power and money; everyone wants more. Let’s be guided by objective policy analysis rather than political self-interest and machinations. These results could either improve our system or set us back decades.